Electricity network contributions remain revenue expenditure where ownership and maintenance stay with the electricity board, supporting business prof...
Commission expenditure linked to pharmaceutical marketing income qualifies as business deduction when recipient identity, genuineness and business pur...
Writ jurisdiction was refused in GST adjudication because the controversy was amenable to the statutory appeal. The High Court held that proceedings under sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act operate in distinct fields, so exoneration under section 73 did not bar action under section 74 on the material before the authorities. It also held that appraisal and reappraisal of evidence, including consideration of additional evidence, lay within the appellate process. The need to make a statutory pre-deposit was not a sufficient ground to bypass the appeal, and the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy on merits.
Writ jurisdiction was refused in GST adjudication because the controversy was amenable to the statutory appeal. The High Court held that proceedings under sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act operate in distinct fields, so exoneration under section 73 did not bar action under section 74 on the material before the authorities. It also held that appraisal and reappraisal of evidence, including consideration of additional evidence, lay within the appellate process. The need to make a statutory pre-deposit was not a sufficient ground to bypass the appeal, and the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
